Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

Patrick

Sorry mate, I was thinking along the lines of Parvez Mohammed ;)

I still disagree with your condoning of killings for `revenge`, as you say, but we can agree to disagree about that. I think that is an extremely dangerous doctrine. If we begin to accept people`s moral prerogative to kill followers of other religions in `revenge` for perceived oppression of coreligionists then incidents like Gujrats seem completely normal. To make the point that there is state government in Gujrat and not in Kashmir (there is) seems to be just sophistry.

I am heartened by the security Christians feel in Pakistan. There was a bad patch so I am happy conditions have improved. I congratulate Pakistani Christians for your solidarity with Pakistan. I make the same point in India. The security of minorities lies in working with the majority, not in looking for excuses to provoke and antagonize them.

#331 by sadna

`` You seem to be asking that the Indians convince the drug trafficking ISI and religious bigot Hafiz Saeed about the quality of Indian democracy and about Indian human rights record in Kashmir. ``

You seem to be assuming that I`m about to confirm Chamberlain`s assertion, and that even if I did, that I`d agree with your rather odious moral equivalence of drug-trafficking and killing/raping of innocent civilians by the Indian army. (--Given that that is a given)

The least count on my moral compass seems to differ from yours, lady, so you can keep asking.

``While you wait, also ask Hafiz Saeed for his opinion on the mandatory death sentence for blasphemy and about rights of Ahmedis.``

tsk tsk... now now.. we wouldn`t happen to be trying to get off the subject, now would we? Or are you suggesting that a man`s odious values in one area renders his actions (and motives) in all other areas equally odious? Interesting logic! Shall we call this Sanda`s dismissal-by-invalid-association principle?

``2. And lets see, according to you, Pakistanis get to use armed religious bigots to make their point but Indians must use reasoned arguments to make theirs. ...Why? The appropriate place to reply to points like those is in the battlefield.``

I would in all earnestness recommend a course in remedial reading. Or alternatively anger/stress management. Look for a therapist who specializes and anger-induced loss of reasoning ability. You see, the only thing i remember saying on the particular issue is that armed religious folks (I didn`t say `bigots`!) can be expected to retaliate when their co-religionists --separated in nationality by a mere one-and-a-half generations-- are reportedly being raped, killed and otherwise persecuted. Now, why was that so difficult to comprehend?

re. HE #311:
Agree with your point on Indian obduracy proving stumbling block to solution. Will be meeting Cowasjee tomorrow over dinner. Will ask for his take on the matter.
Thanks.
And, er.. you`re doing a great job keeping your composure.
Then again, hhhmmph... it must get kinda boring being THAT civil ;)

It is interesting to hear from Sadna, apparently an Indian, that Hafiz Saeed and other leaders, in not making public their financial books, or failing to criticize the absence of democracy in their neck of the wood, should somehow lose the moral prerogative to desire to avenge the oppression (even if exaggerated) of their brothers in faith in a UN-defined disputed territory in a region where, whatever unrealistic secularists would have us believe, and indeed what events such as transpired in Gujarat in 2002 clearly attest to, people largely identify themselves by religious affiliation.

But perhaps it is just Indian insecurity that blinds one to this simple truth that expresses itself in bloodshed (mostly of shall we say the minority communal group?) every ten years or so.

But surely `insecurity` cannot be invoked in the deliberate, albeit clever, manipulation of others` words so as to completely obfuscate and hopefully lead others off the actual issue being debated. Examples of such obfuscation are (i) the demand for independent human rights` observers (especially when the reported state-sponsored oprresson was at its peak, creating extremisits where there may have been none) being presented as having the same magnitude of import as the holding of tansparent elections, which, in any case, is not the issue with anyone.

But of course it suits Sadna`s agenda perfectly well to present the issue as one of transparency of elections and lack of the same among those PRESUMABLY asking for it (although, if you look closely, they really aren`t) as this shifts all responsibility for the creation of these `monsters` away from one`s backyard, which one can now cite as being spanking clean. Perhaps the only thing it is cleansed of are the orignal voices of dissent, and the image of the monster where it rightfully belonged. However, again, we will probably never know just how strong those voices were, and the actual means of their extermination, because --and this is not something Sadna will tell you-- many of them were silenced by what Sadna would call their own state`s army.

Another--rather classic, it has to be said--tactic of obfuscation is the drawing of false, deliberately ridiculous comparisons and extensions of (il)logic to statements made by one`s adversary-- a tactic often used by arjun_m when he seeks to ridicule anyone claiming that the perpetrators of Spet.11 are far from proven. Just as he seeks to completely avoid the debate by suggesting that those making such claims must also believe the canard of 4,000 Jews staying away from work that day (which, of course, they DON`T necessarily believe), Sadna here tries similar dismissal-by-fallacious-association when she seems to suggest that what transpires in the US general elections, or the US`s actions internationally, should be of the the same relevance to Pakistan`s religiously minded as the goings on in a part of a region that has been under dispute (whatever anyone`s RIGHTS to it) since its very independence from colonial rule and principality.

One would almost draw the conclusion that such spohistry is the, pardon the pun, province, of Indians. Thankfully, one is spared such a conclusion by the presence of those many Indians who, whatever their feelings about Kashmiri independence or Pakistani infiltration, haven`t lost the ability to tell apples from oranges. And haven`t mastered the art of verbal alchemy to peddle the two as one species, either.

It is interesting to hear from Sadna, apparently an Indian, that Hafiz Saeed and other leaders, in not making public their financial books, or failing to criticize the absence of democracy in their neck of the wood, should somehow lose the moral prerogative to desire to avenge the oppression (even if exaggerated) of their brothers in faith in a UN-defined disputed territory in a region where, whatever unrealistic secularists would have us believe, and indeed what events such as transpired in Gujarat in 2002 clearly attest to, people largely identify themselves by religious affiliation.

But perhaps it is just Indian insecurity that blinds one to this simple truth that expresses itself in bloodshed (mostly of shall we say the minority communal group?) every ten years or so.

But surely `insecurity` cannot be invoked in the deliberate, albeit clever, manipulation of others` words so as to completely obfuscate and hopefully lead others off the actual issue being debated. Examples of such obfuscation are (i) the demand for independent human rights` observers (especially when the reported state-sponsored oprresson was at its peak, creating extremisits where there may have been none) being presented as having the same magnitude of import as the holding of tansparent elections, which, in any case, is not the issue with anyone.

But of course it suits Sadna`s agenda perfectly well to present the issue as one of transparency of elections and lack of the same among those PRESUMABLY asking for it (although, if you look closely, they really aren`t) as this shifts all responsibility for the creation of these `monsters` away from one`s backyard, which one can now cite as being spanking clean. Perhaps the only thing it is cleansed of are the orignal voices of dissent, and the image of the monster where it rightfully belonged. However, again, we will probably never know just how strong those voices were, and the actual means of their extermination, because --and this is not something Sadna will tell you-- many of them were silenced by what Sadna would call their own state`s army.

Another--rather classic, it has to be said--tactic of obfuscation is the drawing of false, deliberately ridiculous comparisons and extensions of (il)logic to statements made by one`s adversary-- a tactic often used by arjun_m when he seeks to ridicule anyone claiming that the perpetrators of Spet.11 are far from proven. Just as he seeks to completely avoid the debate by suggesting that those making such claims must also believe the canard of 4,000 Jews staying away from work that day (which, of course, they DON`T necessarily believe), Sadna here tries similar dismissal-by-fallacious-association when she seems to suggest that what transpires in the US general elections, or the US`s actions internationally, should be of the the same relevance to Pakistan`s religiously minded as the goings on in a part of a region that has been under dispute (whatever anyone`s RIGHTS to it) since its very independence from colonial rule and principality.

One would almost draw the conclusion that such spohistry is the, pardon the pun, province, of Indians. Thankfully, one is spared such a conclusion by the presence of those many Indians who, whatever their feelings about Kashmiri independence or Pakistani infiltration, haven`t lost the ability to tell apples from oranges. And haven`t mastered the art of verbal alchemy to peddle the two as one species, either.

PM

`please demostrate how my Turkish-kurd-aiding-Iraqi-Kurd-against-Ba`ath analogy is flawed?`

Please clarify that analogy or point out where you made it. Thanks.

PM #325

Are you confirming that the ISI did indeed play a substantial role in drug trafficking on the Afghan-Pakistan border in the last 6 years as Nancy Chamberlain(not Wendy) testified recently to a Senate committee? (It came on CSPAN, btw).

1. You seem to be asking that the Indians the drug trafficking ISI and religious bigot Hafiz Saeed about the quality of Indian democracy and about Indian human rights record in Kashmir.

You can keep asking.

While you wait, also ask Hafiz Saeed for his opinion on the mandatory death sentence for blasphemy and about rights of Ahmedis.

2. And lets see, according to you, Pakistanis get to use armed religious bigots to make their point but Indians must use reasoned arguments to make theirs.

Why? The appropriate place to reply to points like those is in the battlefield.

re. Ralph, #326:

Newspapers operate under the imperative `sell or sink`, so you can well imagine why key articles might be left out of headlines.

But even in making the distinction of `the Hindus` from `Hindus` I was not passing judgement on whether EITEHR would be morally acceptable. (You see, as one of the the few Christian principles I still happen to follow(though with much less conviction than the Good Lord doth admonish) is that of offering the other cheek.)

But I think that the two lie on very different places on the totem pole of evil, and that is the point I was trying to make.

By the way, I don`t happen to deem the extra-juducial killing of the perpetrators of Godhra morally accpetable. That is because there WAS a judicial system in place which should have been allowed/pressed to enforce the rule of LAW. (Though, regrettably, we all know what the law enforcing agencies choes to do instead). In Kashmir, by contrast, there existed no such possible recourse to law and I can very well step out of my Christian skin to understand and even condone the acts of the jihadis, insofar as they were retaliatory, or perceived to be.

rgds,
P(atrick) M(asih)

P.S. You`d be happy to hear I have encountered no anti-Christian sentiment in even the most fundamentalist quarters of society, related to the war in Iraq. Thankfully, people can turn their TV`s on to find Michael Moore and Jean Chriac rail against Bush`s megalomanical operations, and see that, even if this a war agaisnt Muslims, it is not perpetuated by Christians per se. Local Christian leaders have also made it to the airwaves and have done much through rallies and protest marches to create a sense of solidarity with the Muslim masses. The security about churches is actually less now compared to a year or so ago.

PM #325

Are you confirming that the ISI did indeed play a substantial role in drug trafficking on the Afghan-Pakistan border in the last 6 years as Nancy Chamberlain(not Wendy) testified recently to a Senate committee? (It came on CSPAN, btw).

1. You seem to be asking that the Indians convince the drug trafficking ISI and religious bigot Hafiz Saeed about the quality of Indian democracy and about Indian human rights record in Kashmir.

You can keep asking.

While you wait, also ask Hafiz Saeed for his opinion on the mandatory death sentence for blasphemy and about rights of Ahmedis.

2. And lets see, according to you, Pakistanis get to use armed religious bigots to make their point but Indians must use reasoned arguments to make theirs.

Why? The appropriate place to reply to points like those is in the battlefield.

re. pmishra2 #320:
``Yes, you are quite right. Hafiz Saeed is definitely similar to Gandhi. In fact, I think Gandhi had more violent tendencies (didnt he abuse his wife? and mistreat his sons?) and Saeed is more of a normal person.``

Ok... you get the Chowk annual missed-the-point award. Good going. With any luck, you might even fool a few other Indians here about that the argument was about!

re: harimau

[Is Pakistan`s existence justified?]

There was no alternative in 1947. Nehru and G.D. Birla wanted division of India. Muslims felt economically exploited and politically alienated. Jinnah wanted a confederation of 3 states to avoid partition of Punjab and Bengal. Nehru and Birla disagreed. Gandhi acquiesced.

1947 proved that there are 2, not 1 nation in subcontinent. And
1971 proved that there are 3, not 2 nations in subcontinent.

Economically Pakistan has progressed considerably from 1947 situation. The British were using our territories as recruitment area for British Indian Army. There were just 34 industrial units in Pakistan, whereas there were over 830+ in India. So from this perspective, Pakistan has made progress and justified its creation from economic perspective.

Nevertheless, I believe the Hindu-Muslim divisions were deeper in 1947. Now, the communal divide has been considerably abridged. Films and media have helped in creating a common culture in India and Pakistan.

Personally I feel that Indians and Pakistanis get along very nicely on a superficial level. Lingering beneath is distrust and grudge, largely because of the Kashmir issue. In my opinion, this is the only issue on which Indians and Pakistanis disagree ferociously.

Eventually, (if Kashmir is resolved amicably and equitably), I foresee a South Asian Union along the lines of EU in which the Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Nepali and Bhutanese economies are intertwined with few trade barriers, custom regulations and visa restrictions.

If your question suggests that Pakistan should reunite with India, I believe this would be impractical. Pakistanis have gotten used to a particular way of life that Indians would consider too Islamized. To accomodate Pakistanis into India, some major changes will be needed in Indian constitution. I am not sure if majority of Indians will like that.

For example, Indians could object to Urdu as official language. Pakistanis could object to Devangiri script. Pakistanis would like to ban alcohol. Indian Hindus would like to ban cow-slaughter.

We are better off solving the Kashmir issue and living as separate (but friendly) nations.

here we have an interview with the ``Gandhi of Pakistan``. A man who organizes mass murderers of civilians but is treated like a great leader! Notice that this delusional and paranoid monster suffers from some kind of bizarre obsession with India in general. And we are to believe that Kashmir is some kind of special case? That it`s :solution: (giving in to murderous lunatics like these) will lead to peace?

What a joke !


---------------------------------------------

Mohammad Hafiz Said

Globalising jihad

Kashmir would have won its freedom, had the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif not withdrawn forces from the Kargil front. We were very close to victory but Nawaz Sharif, the traitor, sold out the blood of mujahideen to the US



By Mohammad Shehzad

Professor Mohammad Hafiz Said, the mastermind of suicide attacks in Kashmir, breaks his long silence to speak on an issue closest to his heart.

Professor Said is the former chief of the now defunct jihadi outfit, Lashkare Taiba. Prior to founding the Lashkar in 1986, he served as teacher at the Engineering University Lahore.

The Lashkar was banned by Musharraf`s government on 13 January 2002 in the aftermath of an attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001. Said had already stepped down from Lashkar`s leadership by that time. He renamed Markaz Al Dawatul Wal Irshad (whose armed wing was Lashkare Taiba) as Jamatud Dawa, and assumed the position of its leader.

Said was arrested in May 2002 and released on a court order on 31 October 2002, on the basis of the argument that he had resigned from the leadership of Lashkar before it was banned.

Said was in Islamabad on 2nd April to address the Defense of Muslim-Fraternity Conference, organised by Jamaatud Dawa. Political Economy interviewed him on the occasion. Excerpts follow:



PE: You visited the United States in 1994 and gave lectures in 20 cities. What impression did you get of the US state and society at the time?

HS: At that time the US was not hostile towards Pakistan. Its attitude became anti-Islamic after the collapse of the former USSR and the fall of communism. The 9/11 incident added fuel to the US`s animosity and biases against the Islamic world. When I visited the US in 1994 the situation was not that bad.

PE: In an interview with a weekly in 1997 you stated that Kashmir would win its freedom within two years. What went wrong?

HS: I would say that the Kashmir cause has received a serious setback due to 9/11. All freedom movements around the world, particularly in Islamic countries, have now been declared as ``acts of terror``. The US is trying to suppress all such struggles of freedom. Kashmir would have won its freedom, had the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif not withdrawn forces from the Kargil front. We were very close to victory but Nawaz Sharif, the traitor, sold out the blood of mujahideen to the US.

But despite all these acts of `dishonesty`, the mujahideen are fighting stoutly against the Indian repression, and are determined to challenge the immoral Indian occupation of Kashmir. All these factors have delayed the process of Kashmir`s liberation. I think it will take time. But I assure you that the Kashmir movement will be successful.

PE: How far is it correct to say that your bitterness against India is due to the fact that 36 members of your family lost their lives at the time of partition?

HS: It is true that many members of my family were martyred by the Hindus. These things do matter at a personal level, but my bitterness is due to the overall policies, tone and tenor adopted in India against the Muslims. Right from the time of partition, whatever India has done--be it the demolition of Babri Mosque or the holocaust of Muslim populace in Gujarat--proves that Hindus` policy is aimed at eliminating the Muslims so that India could become a Hindu state. In a nutshell, there has been no change in the aggressive and vicious policies of India against the Muslims since partition.

PE: So, what is the solution?

HS: The solution is, of course, not to kneel down before the Indians and beg them for a dialogue. Dialogue is not a bad idea. But India has never been sincere in resolving issues through talks. It has been finding opportunities to stab Pakistan in its back. Look at the role it played in the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971. It sent its troops to the East Pakistan and paved the way for the creation of Bangladesh. And what a shameful role it is playing in Kashmir by defying the UN resolutions and masterminding the mass murder of the Kashmiri Muslims. So we think that our policy of `Kashmir through jihad` is absolutely right. It is India that has shown us the path of jihad.

PE: How do you respond to Dr Israr Ahmad`s statement that the fight in Kashmir is a jihad for freedom (jihad fil hurriyat) and not a jihad for Allah (jihad fisabeel Allah)?

HS: Jihad for freedom is synonymous with jihad for Allah. The Quran is very clear on that. There is only one jihad and that is jihad for Allah. All other forms of jihad are primarily for Allah`s sake. Allah orders the Muslims in the Quran to fight for the rights of the poor and battle against the atrocities against the Muslims. Allah says that such a fight is His fight. Those who dispute that jihad in Kashmir is not for Allah could maintain it as their personal opinion, but they cannot say that this has been established in the Quran.

PE: Do you see any circumstances under which the US could play a positive role in Kashmir? What would that role be?

HS: In the light of the US anti-Muslim and anti-Islam policies, Uncle Sam cannot be trusted. The US is provoking the `infidel` powers against Islam. It has waged a crusade against the Muslims. It is openly condoning Indian acts of terror and extending the Hindus its full support. It has declared the legitimate freedom struggle in Kashmir a reign of terror. In the backdrop of all these facts, we will never accept the US role on the issue of Kashmir.

PE: Americans and the Indians allege that the `infiltration` across the LoC still persists. Is it true?

HS: This is totally wrong. There is no infiltration across the Line of Control. Everything is being carried out by the Kashmiris inside Kashmir. Their freedom struggle is indigenous. This baseless accusation is just an excuse to pressurise Pakistan.

PE: You have been released on bail. What is your legal situation? Do you apprehend that Pakistani government will again bring charges against you? Do you face any restrictions on your movements or activities in Pakistan?

HS: There were restrictions. The government of Pakistan banned Lashkare Taiba. The Lashkar`s role has been limited to Kashmir. The Lashkar is still active in Kashmir. Jamaatud Dawa`s mission is to preach Islam on every street of the country. We are invoking the spirit of jihad among the Muslims. We are also running a lot of philanthropic projects; for instance, we provide free medicines, ambulance services, education etc. We are doing it freely and there is no restriction by the government.

PE: How do Muslim scholars of India, belonging to Ahle Hadith sect, view the jihad in Kashmir?

HS: Their view on jihad in Kashmir is the same as ours. Whether it is Imam Bokhari of Delhi Mosque or the religious figures of other parts of India, they all are unanimous on the point that jihad in Kashmir is valid, and freedom is the right of all Kashmiri Muslims.

PE: Who supports your policies in the National Assembly? What do you expect from them?

HS: I believe the US aggression on Iraq has internationalised the issue of jihad and united all the Muslims on one platform. At the moment, the entire National Assembly and Senate is supporting jihad --be it ARD, PPPP, MMA or PML. I don`t see any rift on the issue of jihad.

PE: The motto of Pakistan Army is jihad for Allah. Do you think it is following this motto?

HS: I would say that the survival of the entire Muslim world depends on jihad. Jihad is the only solution to the repression against the Muslims. It is high time that the army acts according to its motto. It is time for the government to act according to the ideology of Pakistan, which is Islam, and Islam preaches jihad. I would urge Pakistan Army to wage jihad to liberate all oppressed Muslims around the world.

PE: You once asked the Indian Muslims to stand up for jihad. To what extent do you think the Indian Muslims support you in this regard?

HS: I feel they do support our views on jihad. I see that the Indian Muslims are awakening to the call for jihad in the aftermath of brutalities in Kashmir, Gujarat, and other parts of India. India is, in fact, forcing its Muslim population to wage a jihad, just like the US has invigorated the Iraqi Muslims.

re. pmishra2 #320:
``This is what is called shamelessness... The difference between you and Narendra Modi is that the latter is more sincere.``

Can it already. Save your righteous indignation for the time when you`ve successfully defended your position. Otherwise it`s merely so much of added obfuscation.

Has it occured to your self-rightheous self that not all Pakistanis are acquainted with names that Indians like to believe are the masterminds behind civilian killings in Kashmir, even if they those Pakistanis may readily admit to the occurences of such killings?

Now, if you`ve got your self-righteous kicks for the day and want to reengage in actaul debate, perhaps you can address the issue of Indian failure to allow INDEPENDENT (though somone on this board seems to have problems with that) human rights` observers into Kashmir at the height of the insurgency. Could it be that (HORRORS!) the Indian army was also enaging at the time in -- what did someone call it? Tit-for tat?-- at the time? Naah... that would be -- what`s the word? Evil? -- and we all know that the Indian army in Kashmir is totally incapable of being `evil`.

For extra credit, please demostrate how my Turkish-kurd-aiding-Iraqi-Kurd-against-Ba`ath analogy is flawed? Any other takers? Maybe Sadna, once she figures not all of us are stupid enough not to see the obvious flaws in her own analogy with US elections/intervention?

Killing Muslims and Killing the Muslims

PM

Some of your postings dont reveal you to be a mad and bloodthirsty jihadi, so I hope a moderate Muslim like you doesn`t think the way your outburst made you sound.

Still, it is hard to take your explanation at face value. If after Gujrat incident, Narendra Modi had claimed that Hindus were morally justified to kill the Muslims for what they have done to Hindus, what, accordiing to you, would he be saying? Would you hear him say that it was justified to kill

- those who burnt the train full of Hindus
- Muslims who died in the revenge massacre
- or would he be saying that according to him all Muslims deserved to die?

Would you maintain the distinction between the Muslims and Muslims then?

If you would, then you fairness is laudable. Indeed, unfortunately most people have neither your fine grasp of the english grammar nor your subtle moral mind. This includes those who work for AFP and the publishers of The Daily Times. Here is what they published about the statement about whose morality you are not sure. You will notice that everyone missed the point about `the` Hindus and `Hindus`.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-4-2003_pg8_4

Killing Hindus better than talks: Hafiz Saeed

ISLAMABAD: The founder and former head of the outlawed Lashkar-e-Taiba says “killing Hindus” is the best approach to the 56-year-old dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir.

“The solution is not to kneel down before India and beg for a dialogue. India has never been sincere in resolving issues through talks,” Hafiz Saeed told AFP on Wednesday. “Our policy of Kashmir through jihad is absolutely right. India has shown us this path. “We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.” —AFP

As a Christian, I would appeal to you to not start killing `the` Christians because `Christians` are killing `Muslims` in Iraq. There arent too many of them in Pakistan and I hear them all falling over one another to prove their loyalty to Pakistan. Thank you for your generosity.

Acruqlly, His xcellency is not quite off the mark about the Pakistani perspective. I may disagree with his opinions, but they are quite an adequate reflection of the establishment there.

HisExcellency #319


Yes, you are quite right. Hafiz Saeed is definitely similar to Gandhi. In fact, I think Gandhi had more violent tendencies (didnt he abuse his wife? and mistreat his sons?) and Saeed is more of a normal person.

I think you should write about this concept and popularize it. If nothing else, it may ultimately earn you a slot at a classy mental health facility. Your family will be spared the burden of dealing with you.